Defining FLOSS - free/libre and open source software

The first known usage of the term FLOSS was as part of the
Free/Libre and Open Source Software: Survey and Study commissioned by the European
Commission which was published in July 2002. Free/libre and open
source software (FLOSS) is just a combination of the above two terms
emphasizing the 'libre' meaning of the word free.

Please note that in English sometimes the 'l' is dropped in the acronym. While not as clear, this acronym should be considered equivalent.

Introducing "commons-based peer production"

The methodologies and licensing concepts of FLOSS have been
extended beyond just the creation, distribution and enhancement of
software. The term "commons-based peer production"
was first introduced by Yochai Benkler in his paper "Coase's
Penguin, or Linux and the Nature of the Firm".

In this paper I explain that while free software is
highly visible, it is in fact only one example of a much broader
social-economic phenomenon. I suggest that we are seeing is the broad
and deep emergence of a new, third mode of production in the
digitally networked environment. I call this mode "commons-based
peer-production," to distinguish it from the property- and
contract-based models of firms and markets. Its central
characteristic is that groups of individuals successfully collaborate
on large-scale projects following a diverse cluster of motivational
drives and social signals, rather than either market prices or
managerial commands.

Please go to Yochai Benkler's website
which includes references to his book
"The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom"

Open Access

Open-access (OA) literature is digital, online, free of charge,
and free of most copyright and licensing restrictions. (From Peter
Suber's Open
Access Overview). When a work is Open Access it is able to be
distributed freely including via "peer distribution",
although it may or may not allow derivatives (modifications) of any
type which is required for something to be "peer produced".

Creative Commons

The Creative Commons
provides education and license agreements to ensure creators have
certainty when adding their works to a commons or enhancing works
already in the creative commons. The Creative
Commons Canada is an initiative of the Canadian Internet Policy
and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) that is bringing these licenses
and concepts to Canada.

Introducing: "Software Manufacturing"

There have been a variety of terms to refer to the most well known
competitor to FLOSS.

Some people refer to it as "commercial software". Since
FLOSS can also have "profit as its primary goal" it can
also be commercial, simply using alternative business models to
collecting monopoly rents (royalties). There is quite a bit of
non-FLOSS software that is given away for free (no royalty),
suggesting that whether something is "commercial" and
whether it is FLOSS are unrelated.

Some people refer to it as "proprietary software". Those
of us involved in copyright reform find this confusing as all
software that is not in the public domain has "proprietors".
In the case of FLOSS the copyright holders (proprietors) have
licensed their software using terms which protect the rights of those
that will then be able to run, copy, distribute, study, change and
improve the software. Often there are more copyright holders with
peer produced software than with other methods, with the term
"proprietary software" only confusing people.

The best term I have found is "software manufacturing".
This would refer to methods of production, distribution and funding
of software that are similar to those used for manufactured goods.
Some centralized company creates the software (possibly buying
"parts" from other sources that it assembles), it is
distributed by retail and other channels used for tangible goods, and
it is funded per-unit (royalty fees, most often calculated per-copy).

Those involved in this methodology seem to be comfortable with the
term. On the homepage of CAAST.org it says, "The Canadian
Alliance Against Software Theft (CAAST) is an industry alliance of
software manufacturers". While software manufacturers treat
intangible software with the limitations of tangible goods, FLOSS
offers a full spectrum of methods of creation, distribution and
funding which harness the intangible nature of software.

Note: The easiest and best way to reduce so-called "Software
Theft" is to move away from business models which count copies,
suggesting that those who switch
from "software manufacturing" to FLOSS do much more to
reduce copyright infringement than any CAAST campaign.

Why different terms for Open Source and Free Software?

When discussing software, in most cases the software being spoken
about is the same software. The differences are often not important
to simple users of the software.

A number of different terms are used to describe very similar
things. There is quite a bit of discussions around the use of the
term open source software, and the term free software that predates
it. The Free Software Foundation wrote an article titled Why
``Free Software'' is better than ``Open Source'' to explain some
of the differences in terminology from their perspective.

The different terms try to explain the different motivations
behind the creation and use of the software. These motivations are
very important in trying to convince creators to add their works
(software, etc) to the commons, and to help government policy makers
to understand these methodologies adequately in their policy
development.

Free/libre and open source software (FLOSS) is a way to describe
free software that tries to take into account the freedom put forward
by promoters of free software, as well as the so called "pragmatism"
claimed by the promoters of open source. It also brings in some of
the easier to understand terminology used in Europe since free
software is called "software libre" in Spanish, "logiciel
libre" in French and "software libero" in Italian.

The term "commons-based peer production" is useful when
you want to talk about the principles and methodologies for human
creativity beyond just computer software. This is often very useful
when talking to people who are not computer people and who may think
a software-specific movement isn't of interest to them.

I have tended to use a variety of
terms, depending on the audience. When speaking to government
bureaucrats about software I have started to use the expanded phrase
"free/libre and open source software" to introduce what I
am speaking about as it clarifies the meaning.

There are ongoing efforts to help the
so-called "World Intellectual Property Organization" to
fulfil its actual mandate (hint: its mandate is not to maximize
patents and copyright for the benefit of old-economy monopoly rent
seekers) and have meetings
to discuss Collaborative Development Models.